473 So. 2d 658 - St. John v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'We are of the opinion that there must be strict compliance by the prisoner with the requirements . . ., otherwise, a conniving prisoner could finagle procedures to frustrate efforts of the prosecution to give the prisoner the benefit of the Interstate Compact on Detainers.' " Seymore v. State , 429 So.2d 1188 , 1193-4 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983). The appellant's request for disposition was insufficient to trigger the State's obligation under Article III of the Act. Whitley v. State , 392 So.2d 1220 , 1224 (Ala.Cr.App. 1980), cert. denied , 392 So.2d 1225 (Ala. 1981). "In the case at bar, appellant failed to comply with the requirements of the Act. Among other things, the Act requires that 'the request of the prisoner shall be accompanied by a certificate of the appropriate official having custody of the prisoner' stating certain facts (Art. III(a)); that the written notice be sent by the appropriate corrections official having custody of the defendant, by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested (Art. III(b)). These simple prerequisites were not followed in the case sub judice. " St. John v. State , 473 So.2d 658 , 661 (Ala.Cr.App. 1985). "When a prisoner chooses to bypass the simple procedure provided in art. III(b), and attempts to deal directly with officials in the receiving state, he must satisfy the additional requirements of the agreement which would normally be executed by officials in the sending state.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 501 So. 2d 515 - Haywood v. State

2. “"`The test to be applied is whether the jury might reasonably find that the evidence excluded every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt; not whether such evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis but guilt, but whether a jury might reasonably so conclude.'" Id., quoting Cumbo v. State , 368 So.2d 871 , 874 (Ala.Cr.App. 1978), cert. denied , 368 So.2d 877 (Ala. 1979).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 488 So. 2d 1386 - Hall v. State

3. “When a prisoner chooses to bypass the simple procedure provided in art. III(b), and attempts to deal directly with officials in the receiving state, he must satisfy the additional requirements of the agreement which would normally be executed by officials in the sending state.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 501 So. 2d 515 - Haywood v. State